CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Pramoda Devi Wadiyar vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 8 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 KAR CK 0451

HON’BLE JUDGES
E.S. Indiresh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 — Section 136(2) · Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 32774 Of 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 328 words

E.S. Indiresh, J

1.

In this petition the petitioner is challenging the entry of the respondent No.8 in Column No.11 of the RTC in respect of the land bearing Survey No.1 of Mysuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru in RTC extract produced at Annexure-L; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to mutate the name of the petitioner to an extent of 145.13 acres in Survey No.1 of Mysuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru by considering the representation dated 31st July, 2025 (Annexure-K).

2.

Heard Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Prathima Honnapur, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and 7 and 8; and Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.

3.

Smt. Prathima Honnapur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has to exhaust remedy under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

4.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will approach the competent authority within a period of one month.

5.

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority within a period of one month, writ petition is disposed of.

6.

All the contentions of the parties are kept open. It is made clear that the respondents shall not precipitate the matter against the petitioner for a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

7.

It is also made clear that the time spent by the petitioner before this Court shall be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending applications does not survive for consideration.